Why does Hillary lie? Because she thinks she can get away with it. Will American voters let her?

In a column I wrote in early July, based on research by my colleagues and my own analysis of government documents and eyewitness statements, I argued that in 2011 and 2012 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waged a secret war on the governments of Libya and Syria, with the approval of President Obama and the consent of congressional leadership from both parties and in both houses of Congress.

I did err in that column with respect to an arms dealer named Marc Turi. I regret the error and apologize for it. I wrote that Turi sold arms to Qatar as part of Clinton's scheme to get them into the hands of rebels. A further review of the documents makes it clear that he applied to do so but was denied permission, and so he did not sell arms to Qatar. Other arms dealers did.

I also erred when referring to Qatar as beholden to Washington. In fact, Qatar is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of the biggest supporters of global jihad in the world—and Clinton, who approved the sales of arms to Qatar expecting them to make their way to Syrian and Libyan rebels, as they did, knew that. She and her State Department caused American arms to come into the possession of known al-Qaida operatives, a few of whom assassinated U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked Clinton in January 2013 at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether she knew of any weapons coming from the U.S. and going to rebels in the Middle East, she denied such knowledge. She either has a memory so faulty that she should not be entrusted with any governmental powers, or she knowingly lied.

It gets worse. It now appears that Clinton was managing her war using emails that she diverted through a computer server owned by her husband's charitable foundation, even though some of her emails contained sensitive and classified materials. This was in direct violation of federal law, which requires all in government who possess classified or sensitive materials to secure them in a government-approved venue.

The inspector general of the intelligence community and the inspector general of the State Department each have reviewed a limited sampling of her emails that were sent or received via the Clinton Foundation server, and both have concluded that materials contained in some of them were of such gravity that they were obliged under federal law to refer their findings to the FBI for further investigation.

The FBI does not investigate for civil wrongdoing or ethical lapses. It investigates behavior that may be criminal or that may expose the nation's security to jeopardy. It then recommends either that indictments be sought or the matter be addressed through non-prosecutorial means. Given Clinton's unique present position—as the president's first secretary of state and one who seeks to succeed him, as well as being the wife of one of his predecessors—it is inconceivable that she could be prosecuted as Gen. David Petraeus was (for the crime of failing to secure classified materials) without the personal approval of the president himself.

Let's be realistic and blunt: If the president wants Clinton prosecuted for failing to secure classified materials, then she will be, no matter the exculpatory evidence or any political fallout. If he does not want her prosecuted, then she won't be, no matter what the FBI finds or any political fallout.

I have not seen the emails the inspectors general sent to the FBI, but I have seen the Clinton emails, which are now in the public domain. They show Clinton sending or receiving emails to and from her confidante Sid Blumenthal and one of her State Department colleagues using her husband's foundation's server, and not a secure government server. These emails address the location of French jets approaching Libya, the location of no-fly zones over Libya and the location of Stevens in Libya. It is inconceivable that an American secretary of state failed to protect and secure this information.

But it is not inconceivable that she would lie about it.

Federal statutes provide for three categories of classified information. "Top secret" is data that, if revealed, could likely cause grave damage to national security. "Secret" is data that, if revealed, could likely cause serious damage to national security. "Confidential" is data that, if revealed, could likely cause some damage to national security. Her own daily calendars, which she regularly emailed about, are considered confidential.

Clinton has repeatedly denied ever sending or receiving data in any of these categories. She probably will argue that an email that fails to use the terminology of the statute cannot be deemed classified. Here the inspectors general have corrected her. It is the essence of the data in an email—its potential for harm if revealed—that makes its contents classified and the failure to protect it a crime, not the use of a magic word or phrase in the subject line.

She is no doubt lying again, just as she did to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Yet the question remains: Why did she use her husband's foundation's computer server instead of a government server, as the law requires? She did that so she could obscure what the server recorded and thus be made to appear different according to history from how she was in reality.

Why did she lie about all this? Because she thinks she can get away with it. Will American voters let her?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

I have far more respect for people who are satisfied with Obama than those who will vote for Hillary Clinton (let’s just imagine they are two different sets of people for the sake of argument). The woman should be in jail, not the oval office, yet it seems the lefties just want to keep their head in the sand despite the mountains of evidence against her. At a certain point political ideology needs to take a backseat to basic fucking ethics and the rule of law. It’s not hyperbole to say that Hillary is a downright criminal and should be in a cell, not the white house.

The actual Left does not like Clinton at all, because of her warmongering and friendliness to the 0.01%, and her actual lack of any leftish ideology. Since leftists are few and mostly not very wealthy, this probably doesn’t matter, but it may — remember 1968. Should she lose a primary or two, it’s quite possible that her support will melt away, since it is based not on principles and ideology but hope for payoffs, preferments, and advantages.

In the animal kingdom, there are animals which attempt to be the “Alpha” leader. There are humans who attempt to become the leaders over the masses as well. While animals use brute force, humans that want power and do not posses natural leadership qualities resort to underhanded, sneaky tactics like lying, cheating, etc. This has to be done in secrecy, as those humans need to appear to be upright and worthy of admiration.

Hillary is more aggressive in her tactics than most, so called, leaders because her goal is the highest leadership position in the world. The US Presidency is just a steeping stone to that goal.

It seems the Left admires these phony leaders more than it does natural leaders.

“Hillary is more aggressive in her tactics than most, so called, leaders because her goal is the highest leadership position in the world. The US Presidency is just a steeping stone to that goal.”

Are you insinuating that Hillary is the Antichrist and wants to be dictator of the world? It seems that you’re implying that the US presidency isn’t the highest leadership in the world. Not that I would disagree that Clinton has the hubris to think she should run the entire planet…

Here’s the thing, though. I don’t think she is lying. I think the maximum capability of her critical thinking skills has led her to the conclusion that everything she did was both morally and legally right. I think she is utterly convinced that she is properly an exception to the rules who is justified in taking whatever actions she deems appropriate.

Qatar, supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood: interesting in that in the late 90s months before I separated from the AF, my unit deployed to Qatar in support of Operation Southern Watch. Hey, what better way of gathering Intel on the US military than by hosting them? (A Clinton was also President.)

Secret arms deals, why Hollywood likes tell that story with Matt Damon or George Clooney types taking down the corrupt bad guys, except those villains are Repulicans. I guess when Democrats are doing it, they are making the world a better place.

And yes, Americans will let her get away with it because she will distract them with free shit.

Soul? What soul? What did she ever do that makes you think she ever HAD a soul?

Hillary is a prime example of why I favor legal abortion. I don’t think that fetuses are people, I think that humanity is grown in the baby as it lives. And I support this position with the number of pseudo-people I see blundering around who clearly are not human, have no capacity for empathy, and should be put down like rabid dogs.

Hillary is surely the walking embodiment of the total failure of the possibility of good governance. She has committed murder, graft, corruption at the highest levels, personally ordered an ambassador killed, started the Iraq War, and, worst of all, stored emails on a private server. Yet she’s going to be the next president of the US. What is wrong with Americans.

Tony|7.30.15 @ 11:27AM|# “Of course they are. That is what the fat man on the radio tells you.”

Tony, I keep telling you that adults do not need to be told what to do or believe; we are moral agents capable of handling that ourselves. Pathetic excuses for human beings such as yourself, OTOH, require daily guidance.

The thing about being a victim of propaganda is that you won’t know that you’re a victim until after you emerge from the bubble.

Every single idiot on here whose only political idea is that “progs” are evil and destroying the world is a victim of propaganda. One knows because they all say the same thing over and over and over even though it doesn’t mean anything. Rightwing propaganda is specific in its targets. Campus speech codes are a greater threat than Christians inserting bullshit into all of Texas textbooks. A tax on billionaires is literally slavery, but the Iraq War was just a minor error in judgment. You prioritize things in such a ridiculously illogical way that it can only be the result of victimization by propaganda. And guess who that propaganda serves? The Leviathan and its crony corporations. At least “progs” know what masters they serve.

“Citation please. I would like to know where *I* hold any of those feelings.”

I do. Asshole proggies limiting speech are far worse to me than some bozo who thinks the earth is 5,000 years old. Taxes are certainly a form of slavery, assuming slavery means work under coercion, so more taxes = greater slavery And then we get this pile of steaming shit: “And guess who that propaganda serves? The Leviathan and its crony corporations. At least “progs” know what masters they serve.” Notice how, after spending years here, eh still lies obout our support for cronies; fucking mendacious turd. Tony, go lick that ass. I won’t.

“Campus speech codes are a greater threat than Christians inserting bullshit into all of Texas textbooks”

I would argue that this is undeniably a fact. Ever heard of the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor? More speech is almost always better speech. “Christians inserting bullshit into all of Texas textbooks” (which I am not a fan of, assuming that you’re description is accurate) is far less of a threat than campus speech codes for many reasons, not the least of which being that these codes stifle far more speech than the contents of books that most kids don’t pay attention to or even read. Let’s be real, the kids for whom science really matter will seek out and easily find the information these [alleged] textbooks omit. Campus speech codes punish ideas based on their content and viewpoint.

“Campus speech codes are a greater threat than Christians inserting bullshit into all of Texas textbooks”

I would argue that this is undeniably a fact. Ever heard of the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor? More speech is almost always better speech. “Christians inserting bullshit into all of Texas textbooks” (which I am not a fan of, assuming that you’re description is accurate) is far less of a threat than campus speech codes for many reasons, not the least of which being that these codes stifle far more speech than the contents of books that most kids don’t pay attention to or even read. Let’s be real, the kids for whom science really matter will seek out and easily find the information these [alleged] textbooks omit. Campus speech codes punish ideas based on their content and viewpoint.

“The thing about being a victim of propaganda is that you won’t know that you’re a victim until after you emerge from the bubble.

Every single idiot on here whose only political idea is that “progs” are evil and destroying the world is a victim of propaganda. One knows because they all say the same thing over and over and over even though it doesn’t mean anything. Rightwing propaganda is specific in its targets. Campus speech codes are a greater threat than Christians inserting bullshit into all of Texas textbooks. A tax on billionaires is literally slavery, but the Iraq War was just a minor error in judgment. You prioritize things in such a ridiculously illogical way that it can only be the result of victimization by propaganda. And guess who that propaganda serves? The Leviathan and its crony corporations. At least “progs” know what masters they serve.”

This is where Tony admits that he doesn’t read anything critical of his own views. How even ardent Democrats can convince themselves that “Hillary is […] a constant target of partisan conspiracy mongering” just blows my fucking mind. She is a liar, a criminal and a corrupt politician who, when push comes to shove, would and has abandoned her “progressive” ideas when politically expedient for her. Her current movement further left is only because she perceives that’s what’s necessary for her to win. She doesn’t even care about the causes that you do Tony, that’s what’s hilarious. You are being tricked and you don’t even realize it.

I’d like you to state right here, unequivocally, should Hillary win the nomination you won’t vote for her. I’m not expecting you to vote for Scott Walker, Trump, or Carly Fiorino, or anyone else the Repubs throw up. But, state right now you won’t vote for her.

If you don’t, and you say ‘well better her than someone who fights unions (Walker), or is a relatively competent blowhard (Trump), or is a corporate slut (Fiorino)’, then what you’re openly admitting is you have no morals whatsoever.

I’m actually giving you the chance to be a man here. And, I’m trusting that if you say it, then you won’t vote for her.

Dumb question, but is there clear-cut proof that the State Department did funnel arms to Syria and Libya via Qatar, as the Judge is claiming? Because if so, “She armed Al-Qaida” seems like a great campaign ad, and a pretty compelling reason to try her for treason, to boot.

We aren’t going to be trying Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive icon like Shrillary for treason any time soon. It isn’t that they aren’t traitors, although that is a fairly hard legal standard to reach. It’s that far too many of the Fashionable Left have done things that, in the cold light of reason, could be construed as supporting a foreign, enemy, power. I think that was one of the major motives behind the rabid Hate Bush movement; themnumber of academics and trendy intellectualoids who were afraid that their support of terror groups like Hamas was about to lamd them in serious trouble. That Bush considered their trendy idiociees too trivial go bother with wouldn’t have occurred to them.

Shouting “Traitor” about Hillary is a tactical mistake we should avoid. Stick to things she has clearly done that few outside of the political class have; she’ll get less sympathy.

If a low-level bureaucrat did what she did with regards to the lying and server breaches she would be fired and possibly indicted. Since these issues are easier to prove than the arms supply issues, and should be enough for her to not be elected, I sort of get why that’s the focus. Low hanging fruit and all that (if anyone would actually pay attention to the facts).

Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…http://www.jobnet10.com

the National Airport in Washington DC was renamed Ronald Reagan International.Mr Reagan apologized and accepted responsibility for neglect in the 1981 Beirut bombing that killed 300 Marines and others.bipartisan congressional investigations proposed changes to foreign service protection that he never paid attention to. five Lebanon embassy personnel were killed later, in another attack. no attention was yet forthcoming and members of Lebanon embassy were kidnapped months later. no one, Democrat or Republican, seems to have learned anything. but he tragedy of Benghazi has been used like a political football while the hundreds who were killed in Beirut were allowed to rest in peace.

So that excuses every thing that Hillary has done that warrants investigation ? Since Regan did things you don’t like Hillary can break any law that is to her advantage and sell the power of her office to the highest bidder and you will come to her defense ?

“Why does Hillary lie? Because she thinks she can get away with it. Will American voters let her?”

It’s not just that American voters will “let” her, but many of them *like* that she lies and gets away with it. They wish to be ruled, and they wish their neighbors to be ruled.

That she can get away with spitting in the faces of voters with totally ludicrous lies, like “no classified material in the Secretary of States’ email server”, is one of the reasons they love and support her. Being able to lie with *impunity* is a sign of power, and some voters feel their testicles and ovaries swell with lust and pride every time Hillary shows that she can abuse the peasants at will.

Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…http://www.jobnet10.com